I haven't been blogging about this trial or the horrible murder or accident or whatever it was.

I actually could have been on the jury (if I lived down there) because I honestly was trying to be fair. I wasn't there, I don't know what happened or how.

I did not see being part of the nonsense. A lot of ignorant people -- as always egged on by White people like Red Amy Goodman -- running around in hoodies and pretending they were Trayvon Martin.

He died. I'm very sorry he died for whatever reason. But I wanted justice.

I didn't want soap opera.

I didn't need all the crap Al Sharpton spewed on TV.

I needed, I think the country needed, answers.

Will we get them?

I don't know.

The star witness for Trayvon turned out to be a cheap, uneducated, lying hood rat.

There's no reason to believe her now. She's lied repeatedly. If she had some honesty to share, her lack of ethics ensured that no one would believe her.

That's why I wrote last night.

In the Black community, we've been told that "his girlfriend" (she wasn't) would take the stand and it would all become clear.

I honestly thought that would happen. I tried not to believe that it meant one thing or another, just that it meant she would be the voice of honesty and reason.

And after a year of hearing this, hood rat lumbers to the stand and destroys everything she was supposed to be.

I'm not going to be blogging about the trial.

I don't know that we'll get the truth now. And I feel bad for typing that. I do believe there's always been a 50% chance that George Zimmerman was innocent.

But what I feel right now is that, to the jury, it no longer matters because a fat ass hood rat thought she could act up in the court and show her ass.

I think Zimmerman's going to walk now. I feel bad for him because I think he won when Rachel Jeantel first opened her fat and uneducated mouth. And I'm not alone in thinking that.

So my point here is that if he is found innocent, there will be doubt because of Rachel Jeantel's embarrasing b.s.

If she'd been the witness we were told was going to save the day, then a case could have been made by both sides and, if Zimmerman was found innocent, he would have been found innocent with no cloud over his head.

Thanks to Hood Rat Jeantel, I think the jury's already made their mind up -- I wouldn't blame them if they had.

Again, I don't plan to write about this again. I may when the verdict comes out.

I feel sorry for Trayvon Martin and for his family. I feel sorry for Mr. Zimmerman's family. I feel sorry for Mr. Zimmerman if he's innocent (and he may be).

But I feel a lot of anger for a fat adult who had a year to clean up her act but instead thought she was going on Maury or some trash TV talk show and thought she knew all about how to conduct herself.

She was an embarrassment. To my Black brothers and sisters, let's all try to be a little bit more than Rachel Jeantel was.

And as for idiots like Alexander Abad-Santos -- shut your damn mouth. You stupid race-baiting idiot. In the Black community, we know what's what unlike you the 'expert' that's going to save us. F**K you. And at least I called her a woman. That's what she is Alex, a woman. 19-years-old.I can't think of anything more offensive than Alex's portrayal of her as a "19-year-old Black girl."

Would he call a 19 year old Black man a "boy"? It's the same damn thing. So shove it up your ass, Alexander Abad-Santos. Or maybe write about your own ethnic group -- you might not come off so stupid and so racist.

Friday, June 28, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Hoshyar Zebari
makes optimistic readings, protests continue in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr
continues to be one of the few Iraqi leaders who reads the actual
details, retired US general George Casey is a 'trending' in the Iraqi
press, Bradley Manning's defense appears to miss yet another
opportunity, new revelations emerge about Barack Obama's spying on the
American people, and more.

The torture had so disfigured him that even his own mother had trouble recognizing him when she visited him in prison.But as Ahmad ‘Amr ‘Abd al-Qadir Muhammad’s mother explained, what happened to her son behind bars is not unusual in Iraq."For
a year I thought he was dead and then I was told that he was in prison.
On my first visit I did not recognize him because of the marks of
torture on him … The burn on his shoulder, the burn on his leg, the
injury from a drill in his arm,” she told Amnesty International.Her
son Ahmad, a Palestinian born in Iraq, was arrested on 21 July 2006 in
the Zayouna district of Baghdad, at the height of the sectarian violence
that crippled the country, and held incommunicado for more than a year.The
authorities accused him of being a member of an armed group that was
planning to plant explosives, and sentenced him to death 17 May 2011
after a trial marred by torture allegations.When he saw his
mother for the first time in a year, in a detention centre in the
al-Baladiyat district of Baghdad, he just said:“They tortured me to force me to ‘confess’.”A medical
examination carried out by the Forensic Medical Institute around two
years after Ahmad’s arrest documented “brown large scars” on various
parts of his body, congruent with his account.

The torture, the disappearances in the 'legal' system, the imprisonment
of people without trial and, even more shocking, the imprisonment of
people without being charged are hallmarks of Iraqi 'justice' today and
they are among the issues that kicked off the 2011 protests and
jump-started the ongoing protests that began December 21st. National Iraqi News reports "thousands" turned out in Falluja and Ramadi today and notes:Sheikh Mohammed Fayyad, one of the organizers of Anbar sit-ins ,said to
NINA reporter : "The citizens participated in the prayers that held in
the courtyard northern Ramadi and eastern Fallujah cities , stressing
that the goal of this trickle is to send one again a message to the
governing in Baghdad that our demonstrations are peaceful and backed by
citizens deep conviction.

Iraqi Spring MC notes
that speakers in Samarra sees Iran behind the 2006 attack on the
al-Askari shrines and they cite US General George Casey for that
assertion. They also note
Samarra protesters are calling for an independent, international
investigation and state that they do not trust Nouri's government to
conduct the investigation. Alsumaria notes
that the cry was also echoed at the Tikrit demonstration. They
elaborate on Casey's remarks explaining that they were made in France
and that he was speaking at event sponsored by an Iranian opposition
group (they probably mean the MEK). NINA quotes
Sheikh Hussein Ghazi stating in Samarra, "It has become clear in the
light of what is declared by the US forces former commander in Iraq Gen
George Casey, a few days ago, about Iran's implication in Samarra
bombings that targeted the holy shrine of the two Imams in 2006, and the
painful consequences of those bombings that have been carried out with
the knowledge of the Iraqi government." Alsumaria notes
Moqtada al-Sadr, cleric and movement leader, responded to a question
about Casey's charges by noting that the US government repeatedly blames
Iran whenever possible and -- apparently confusing Casey with either
former US general (and one time top commander in Iraq) and former CIA
Director David Petraeus or with Assistant Secretary of State Brett
McGurk who's currently stationed in Iraq -- Moqtada dismissed Casey as a
"womanizer."

In Falluja, National Iraqi News Agency notes, Sheikh Ghalib al-Issawi called for the closure of the Iranian embassy in Baghdad. Iraqi Spring MC adds that many members of the media were prevented by Nouri's forces from entering the square where the sit-in was taking place.

Alsumaria reports
protesters in Dhi Qar Province insist that they will continue their
protests until the electricity situation is addressed. (Electricity
actually has gotten worse in the last months in Dhi Qar which is what
prompted the citizens to take to the streets.) Al Mada reports
that at least 50 people turned out in Basra to protest in front of
Egypt's Consulate over the death of Shi'ite cleric Hassan Shehata. Four
days ago, saleh1966 (All Voices) reported:

Some 3,000 Sunnis, led by Salafis, attacked and killed four Shiite men including senior
cleric Hassan Shehata and his brother, accusing Shehata of spreading
Shiism beliefs in Egypt. The attack occurred in the town of Zawiyat Abu
Muslim in Giza province on the outskirts of Cairo on Sunday, al-Ahram newspaper reported.The
paper also stated that hundreds of attackers stabbed, beat and dragged
the bodies of the victims. About 30 were seriously injured and four were
pronounced dead by the Health Ministry.

For six months and one week, Iraqis have taken their protests public at great risk to their own safety. The the April 23rd
massacre -- when Nouri's federal forces stormed a sit-in and killed
adults and children -- was only the most violent example of the security
forces attacking protesters. Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk) announced 50
activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault. UNICEF informed
the world that 8 of the dead were children and twelve more children
were left injured. Protesters have been followed home by security
forces, have been harrassed by security forces, have been pursued in
mosques by security forces.

But they have continued to turn out in a manner which the world press
would normally applaud; however, the world press makes increasingly
clear just how little they care about Iraq or Iraqis. The Tuesday April
23rd massacre, for example, was reported after the fact by the world
press. In the days leading up to it (the Friday before at least one
protester at the Hawija sit-in was killed by Nouri's forces and several
were injured, the sit-in was surrounded by Nouri's forces which refused
to allow them to leave; the Saturday and Sunday saw efforts by Iraqi MPs
to enter the sit-in and deliver food and medicine), only the Iraqi
press covered it. No US outlet filed one story even though, by Sunday evening, even the US State Dept was taking the issue seriously and terming it a "hot spot." Would the 53 people slaughtered have died if the world press had done their job? Possibly not.

The world press exists to humor Nouri al-Maliki, not to hold a US-installed thug accountable. Felicity Arbuthnot (Dissident Voice and Global Research) notes realities as she explains a popular rumor in Iraq currently:

As violence continues to rage across “liberated” Iraq under America’s
puppet “Prime Minister” Nuri al-Maliki, a fair amount of it at his
instigation as his troops round up and shoot demonstrators (President
Jalal Talabani, who had a heart attack early in the year has vanished
without trace, Vice President Tarik al-Hashimi has fled to Turkey in
fear of his life) one incident arguably of note, has gone unnoticed in
the Western media.On Friday June 21st the Ba’ath Party, in a statement, said that “Party Members” had killed one of Saddam Hussein’s executioners
alleging it was the balaclava masked man who placed the noose around
his neck and led him to the trap door, in a videoed and multi-mobile
recorded death and aftermath of further horror, ushering in the US-UK’s
“New Iraq.”

The exeuctioner rumored to have been killed is also rumored to have
worked for Nouri personally and to have been a relative of Nouri.

Good news, Iraq is not in the midst of a(nother) civil war (ethnic
cleansing) and no civil war (ethnic cleansing) is coming because the
current "crisis is manageable" -- so says Iraq's Foreign Minister
Hoshyar Zebari in an exclusive interview with the Associated Press.
Of course, Zebari's also fudging what happened yesterday at the United
Nations Security Council. Like Zebari, I was there. See yesterday's snapshot.
Iraq was 'removed' from Chapter VII but, despite Zebari (and other
Iraqi officials) insisting 'free at last!,' Iraq was placed under
Chapter VI which is only slightly better than Chapter VII. From the UN press release:Recognizing that the situation that now exists in Iraq is
significantly different from that which existed at the time of the
invasion, the Council decided that the issues of missing people and
property will now be handled under Chapter VI of the Charter, which
calls for a peaceful resolution of disputes.
Another key provision of the new resolution is the Council’s
decision to transfer the mandate formerly assigned to the High-Level
Coordinator for Iraq-Kuwait Missing Persons and Property to the UN
Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI).
Paragraph 14 of resolution 1284 (1999)
requested the appointment of a High-Level Coordinator to report to the
Security Council regularly on “compliance by Iraq with its obligations
regarding the repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country
nationals or their remains” and “the return of all Kuwaiti property,
including archives, seized by Iraq.”
The new resolution terminates that measure and in turn calls on
the head of UNAMI to “promote, support and facilitate efforts regarding
the repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or
their remains, and the return of Kuwaiti property, including the
national archives, seized by Iraq.”
Further, the resolution also requests that Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon consider designating the deputy chief of UNAMI covering
political affairs “with the responsibility for overseeing these issues
and ensuring appropriate resources for this purpose.”

Statement by Secretary Kerry: UN Security Council Decision to Transfer Chapter VII Mandate to the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq

June 28, 2013

The United States congratulates the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait on
successfully resolving key bilateral and international issues over
the past year, which helped result in today’s milestone decision by
the UN Security Council. It's testament to the commitment of two
neighbors to a new relationship that we're witnessing the transfer of
the Chapter VII mandate and responsibilities of the UN High-Level
Coordinator for Gulf War Missing Kuwaiti and Third-Country Nationals
and the Return of Kuwaiti Property to the UN Assistance Mission in
Iraq.We further welcome the completion of the border maintenance work and the
establishment of technical arrangements between Iraq and Kuwait as
recommended by the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation
Commission. As I discussed during my visit to Kuwait yesterday,
we will continue to support both Kuwait and Iraq so they continue to
build further confidence and cooperation, strengthen their
relationship, and enhance regional stability.

As so often happens, cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr appears to be the only one paying attention to the details. Alsumaria reports
he declared today that he hoped the Iraqi government did not give away
needed things to leave Chapter VII and that moving Iraq from Chapter VII
to Chapter VI does not grant Iraq freedom. He has concerns about a
number of issues including the economics of the deal. Al Mada reports
that Parliament is also expressing concerns about the issue of Iraq's
money held by the international community and about being shut out on
the negotiations regarding the shift from Chapter VII to Chapter VI.

The Iraqi government declared the disputed town of Tuz Khormatu a
disaster zone following the recent string of bombings targeting
protestors bemoaning the deteriorating security situation in the city.
The bombings killed and injured hundreds of people, including the
head of the Iraqi Turkmen Front, a number of its leaders, and members of
the Saladin provincial council.Niyazi Oglu, a Turkmen representative to the Saladin provincial council, informed Asharq Al-Awsat:
“Among the measures that the ministerial committee, protestors, and
government representatives agreed upon is to provide the [town] with the
necessary infrastructure to convert it into a governorate.”

Things sound a little less 'manageable' than what Zebari's portraying them as. Al Rafidayn reports
that the US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft met with the Iraqi
media and answered questions. Among them, a new Iraqi prime minister?
Parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2014. Beecroft stated it is
the job and right of the Iraqi people to pick their leaders and the US
is prepared to have a diplomatic relationship with any Iraqi chosen to
represent the people. He refused to speculate on any particular
person. He was asked about the F-16 fighters and stated that they would
not be delivered until September 2014.

Public NoticeBureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Iraq.SUMMARYThe Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
Request for Proposals for projects that promote human rights and the
rule of law in Iraq.PLEASE NOTE: DRL strongly urges applicants to access immediately www.grants.gov
in order to obtain a username and password. It may take two full weeks
to register with www.grants.gov. Please see the section entitled,
“DEADLINE AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS” below for specific instructions. REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVESDRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one or both of the
following issues:Technical Capacity Building to Service Providers in Gender Based Violence Programs (approximately $1,500,000 available) DRL seeks proposals for programs to increase the technical capacity
of service providers (both governmental and non-governmental) in Iraq
that focus on protections for victims of gender-based violence (GBV),
pursuant to the goals and objectives of the U.S. National Action Plan on
Women, Peace and Security and the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond
to Gender-based Violence Globally.In the broadest terms, “gender-based violence” is violence that is
directed at an individual based on his or her biological sex, gender
identity, or his or her perceived adherence to socially defined norms of
masculinity and femininity. It includes physical, sexual, trafficking
in persons, and psychological abuse; threats; coercion; arbitrary
deprivation of liberty; and economic deprivation, whether occurring in
public or private life. Women and girls are the most at risk and
affected by GBV. However, boys and men can also experience GBV, as can
sexual and gender minorities, such as men who have sex with men and
transgender persons. Strengthening the physical, material, and human
resources of institutions that aim to assist victims of GBV is an
essential first step in addressing this issue.Proposed programs must directly target those service providers
engaged with or training to engage with victims of domestic violence and
other forms of GBV, including sexual violence, early and forced
marriage, honor crimes, perceptions of gender that may lead to violence,
and/or female genital mutilation (e.g., social workers, NGO workers,
shelter staff, health care providers, and/or students in university
programs focusing on human rights, counseling, or social work).Training activities must, at minimum, include:

ensuring privacy of victims

sensitizing staff

de-stigmatizing victims of violence

addressing attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs of GBV counselors

understanding the legal framework

training health care providers, including in forensic examination and documentation

improving danger assessment

providing safety planning

providing emergency services to survivors of sexual violence

developing educational and informational materials for training GBV service providers.

The ability to assemble partner organizations and actors to develop
and adopt standards and protocols will be highly valued. The engagement
of non-traditional stakeholders such as men and boys, and religious and
community leaders, is encouraged. The successful implementer should be
able to target, assemble, and obtain buy-in from partners to facilitate
knowledge-sharing; and be able to provide technical assistance and
coaching through frequent, regular communication and regular site visits
to partner facilities.An ability to implement programs in Iraq must be demonstrated. The
proposal must realistically address the challenges and limitations the
applicant would likely face in Iraq. The duration of proposed programs
must be between twelve to eighteen months. Applicants may request
between $750,000 and $1,500,000.

We don't have the space in the snapshot for the full release (the above is not even 1/4 of the release). So use the link if you're interested and we'll try to post it in full this weekend.

When you go out in the streetSo many hassles with the heatNo one there can fill your desireCops out with the megaphonesTelling people stay inside their homesMan, can't they see the world's on fire?Somebody take us away, take us away
-- "Safe In My Garden," first appears on the Mamas and the Papas' album The Papas & the Mamas

The openly gay soldier’s arrest and prosecution have not been an
issue for the nation’s largest LGBT groups. Searches for “Bradley
Manning” on websites for the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal,
OutServe-SLDN or National Gay and Lesbian Task Force yield no
statements, news releases or other references.The ACLU and Amnesty International, however, have monitored the Manning case.The ACLU maintains the government is overreaching with the charge of
aiding the enemy. “The crux of the government’s case against Manning –
that he leaked sensitive documents without authorization – in no way
depends on branding him a traitor,” said Ben Wizner, director of the
ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “In its zeal to throw the
book at Manning, the government has so overreached that its ‘success’
would turn thousands of loyal soldiers into criminals.”Amnesty, which has dispatched a monitor to Maryland for a trial that
is expected to last until August, has said the government must allow
Manning to use a public interest defense. “The court must allow Manning
to explain in full his motives for releasing the information to
WikiLeaks,” said Anne FitzGerald, Amnesty director of research and
crisis response. “Manning should have been allowed to explain how, in
his opinion, the public interest in being made aware of the information
he disclosed outweighed the government’s interest in keeping it
confidential.”

Who are they talking about? Bradley Manning. Brad's a little 'too
controversial' for support from the LGBT groups who will always stand up
for one of their own -- provided that person can be easily marketed and
vanilla. Brad's involved in issues that really matter and that's when
Human Rights Campaign and others have to take a pass.

Monday April 5,
2010, WikiLeaks released US
military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were
killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and
Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7,
2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley
Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel
(Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had
been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring
classified information to his personal computer between November and May and
adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second
comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of
classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud
(Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one
that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty
if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of
this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced
that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has
yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a
record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland,
with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a
traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.

Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and
counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and
killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding
cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and
third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I
believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had
access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A
tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military
and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq
and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of
time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate
the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the
people living in the effected environment everyday.

Standing up against brutality and War Crimes is too controversial for
Human Rights Campaign. Give them an 'issue' like who didn't go to prom
and they'll work themselves into a frantic uproar. But deal with an
issue that has global implications of life and death and watch the
'brave' groups fall silent.

AP reports
that Col David Miller, Brad's commander in Iraq, took the stand today
and declared that the reaction in the unit to Brad's release was "a
funeral-like atmosphere fell over that crowd." Oh, how awful. It
sounds like the poor dears could be 'shaken' by other things as well --
like maybe the Superbowl or NBA play offs as well? Maybe the US
military can next prosecute over that and how it effected 'morale'?
Considering that Brad only confessed in February, Miller might have used
his command position to execute those under him on democracy -- or was
Miller so traumatized that he forgot the US Constitution and how the
legal system works in the US? Was Col Miller so raked with gasping sobs
that the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" escaped him? Was he so
traumatized that he was unable to advise the people serving under him to
focus on their tasks and missions?

Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News) quotes
Miller testifying, "I was stunned. The last thing I anticipated was an
internal security breach from one of our own." So the 'morale' issue
was really about Miller's own shock -- including the fact that he failed
at his job since the "internal security breach" took place under his
watch. Sounds like Miller's 'trauma' has a lot to do with his own
failures as a commander. This is a point a functioning defense would
have made (Brad doesn't have one) and they immediately would have begun
asking Miller about disciplinary actions that were taken against him
(Miller). If there were none, the defense should have hammered that
home. If Brad's actions did not result in serious discipline for his
commander, then the brass was saying privately that Brad's actions
weren't that serious.

Diane Rehm: All right, so let me ask you all, if Snowden did decide
to return to the United States, what would happen to him? Anne Gearan?

Anne Gearan: Well, there's an indictment, so he would be arrested.
The question is, what would happen, presuming he came back to the United
States in a public manner and the Justice Department, law enforcement
authorities knew where he was? And it's hard to imagine that it could
happen in any other fashion at this point. The question then becomes,
what would happen to him post-arrest? Would he be treated as a sort of
ordinary white-collar criminal? Would he be treated as some sort of
special case because of the national security implications? The Obama
administration is extraordinarily well aware of the bad PR around the
world that surrounded the treatment in jail, the perception of the
treatment in jail of the Wiki leaker who is now on trial in military
court. They wouldn't want to repeat anything like that, but it is hard
to imagine that they would allow him to be released before trial.

Diane Rehm: Would he get a fair trial, Moises?

Moises Naim:
Well, the publicity around him and surrounding the case will certainly
make it very complex, but I don't see any other way, except if he go --
some country accepts and gives him asylum. And there is talk, you know,
the Russians, he's at a very strange place...

Diane Rehm: He sure is.

Moises Naim:
...at (word?) airport in Russia where, you know, the Russians claim that
he's not in their territory. You know, they have a hot potato in him,
and it's a delicious hot potato because they are mining it to the hilt
and enjoying the limelight on the case.

Diane Rehm: So what is his legal status in this country now that his passport has been revoked?

Anne Gearan:
Well, he's not quite a man without a country. He's an American, but he's
an American caught in an international transit zone which is the
ultimate no-man's land without a passport. So he cannot travel as an
American citizen. He will have to travel on some other kind of travel
document which would have to be granted by another country.

Diane Rehm:
I see.

Anne Gearan: Or the United States would have to an extradition
arrangement under which he would come home with law enforcement escort.

The revelations about Barack's spying on Americans continue to emerge. Yesterday on the Pacifica Evening News (a joint-production from KPFA and KPFK -- click here for the specific broadcast), John Hamilton explained:There are new revelations today about the scope of NSA surveillance on foreigners and on United States citizens. The Guardian
reveals the Obama administration, for more than two years, permitted
the NSA to continue collecting vast amount of records detailing the
e-mail and internet usage of Americans. Top secret memos obtained by
the Guardian detail how an initially warrentless wiretapping
program code named Stellar Wind began shortly after 9-11 and continued
until 2011 with some aspects continuing to this day. The program
collected vast amounts of bulk meta data on e-mail traffic including for
several years on communications not involving foreigners. The program
also collected mega data on the Internet Protocol, or IP, addresses used
by people inside the United States when sending e-mails, that's
information that can reflect their physical location. It did not include
the content of e-mails. An Obama administration official confirmed the
existence of the program to the Guardian but said it ended in 2011;
however, the Guardian reports some collection of Americans' online records continues today when one party in the communication is outside the US.

Patrick Toomey (ACLU): The process
was one that doesn't support the normal, adversarial judicial process.
Only the government is a participant in most proceedings before the
[FISA] Court and we have also found, from the IG report, that there was a
very clubby or seemingly friendly negotiation that happened between the
Executive Branch and the Court. There's descriptions of back-and-forth
between the Court and the Court's legal advisors and the Executive
Branch, weekend meetings between the judges and the Court has simply
proceed in a very pro forma way to reauthorize every three months or so
the wire tapping programs that the government has brought under the
Court's supervision.Alice Ollstein: According to the Guardian, this particular program
ended in 2011 but another called Evil Olive began in late 2012 designed
to capture the meta data of online data between US citizens and their
connections abroad. The ACLU is currently suing the Obama
administration over the mass collection of phone data of American
citizens revealed in documents published by the Guardian revealed
earlier this month. Tommey says a jdugment in that case that mega date
deserves protection against unreasonable search and seziure could set a
legal precedent that also protects online communications swept up by the
federal government. Alice Ollstein, Free Speech Radio News, Washington.

Yesterday, the ACLU issued the following press release:

June 27, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.orgNEW YORK – The government is collecting large amounts of information about Americans' internet communications, according to a report published today in The Guardian. The newspaper also published
an internal government report detailing the blanket collection of email
and other internet data as part of the NSA's original warrantless
wiretapping program, which was apparently modified over time."The revelations about our government's spying raise new and
troubling questions about the extent to which the government is
monitoring Americans' private lives, including whom we email or chat
with and what websites we visit," said Alex Abdo, staff attorney with
the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. "This is
further confirmation that the National Security Agency has been
operating in the shadows for far too long. Extreme secrecy has
facilitated extreme policy – all at the expense of Americans'
constitutional right to be left alone by their government absent
specific cause or suspicion. The Obama administration must come clean
with the country about the extent to which it believes it may monitor
all Americans' emails and phone calls. The debate that the
administration has welcomed cannot take place without the facts it
continues to conceal."Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel with the ACLU's Washington
Legislative Office, said, "We once again learn the Senate and House
Intelligence Committees were briefed and approved of invasive
surveillance, this time the bulk collection of our e-mail records
without any suspicion of wrongdoing. There are still many unanswered
questions, particularly what programs currently exist and what
information they collect on innocent Americans. Congress needs to force
public disclosure of all legal underpinnings of these programs and get
to work on reining them in. It appears clear that the administration,
the FISA Court, and many members of the intelligence committees will
continue to allow the NSA's broad dragnet of innocent American
communications if Congress doesn't act now to stop it."

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Did George Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin dead because of Trayvon's race?

I don't know.

I wasn't there.

But all along I have hoped that the trial would provide justice and I understood that might mean Zimmerman goes to prison and it might mean he walks. I was willing to trust that the system might work (for a change) and that justice might take place.

And then came Rachel Jeantel.

If you don't know the idiot, you don't work around many Black people. Forget the news, we are enraged by the star witness for the prosecution.

She's an idiot. She's a fool. Her stories don't match up.

Now George Zimmerman may have shot Trayvon in cold blood. I hope he didn't. But he might have. And Rachel Jeantel was who a lot of us were pinning our hopes on. She was on the phone with Trayvon. And we were led to believe that she would be a credible witness.

She's not even a credible person.

As a 60-year-old Black man said at my work (I am Black, I work in an all Black office) today, "If Zimmerman walks it's because of that damn fool girl."

That's a common sentiment. I feel sorry for Zimmerman because he could be innocent (I wasn't there) and it could be demonstrated in court that he is but for a lot of us in the Black community, we'll have to wonder if Trayvon had a real witness and not Jeantel, would Zimmerman have walked.

She finished her second day of testimony today and it was just as bad as her first.

I could take, for example, her inability to read (she claims she can read, just not cursive). I think that's a shame and pretty disgusting (she's 19-years-old, a woman of 60 I could understand). But then there's her talking. Which is its own form of a language. She also can't speak at a regular volume.

She acts like a blowfish on the stand (which makes her look like she's lying) -- she gets nervous and blows her fat cheeks -- on her fat face -- in and out.

She's lied repeatedly and is being called out on it in front of the jury.

This is who the prosecution was going to make their case with?

This young woman is an idiot and a moron. And the prosecution had over a year to get her an education. They couldn't even teach her how to dress or how to sit.

She's a hood rat plain and simple. They pulled her hair back to try to make her look respectable but she's a hood rat and she destroys Trayvon.

She destroys because she's lied in a deposition, she's lied Trayvon's mother, she just lies and lies.

She also destroys Trayvon because she's a hood rat. And her hood ways bring Trayvon down to her trashy level.

Thanks Rachel for being such a hood rat and destroying any chance at us ever knowing what actually happened.

Thursday, June 27, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Martin Kobler
calls out the violence (while madly packing), Hoshyar Zebari delivers a
major speech to the UN Security Council, Iraq is taken off Chapter VII
(but it's not the celebration moment some see it as), we look at The
Erbil Agreement and Ayad Allawi's comments to the BBC about "the
Americans," and more.

Today in New York, at the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari spoke at length about Iraq and leaving
Chapter VII. Excerpt.

Minister Hoshyar Zebari: Mr. President, at the outset, allow me to
thank you for holding this important meeting. I should also like to
express my thanks and my appreciation to the countries that sponsored
this resolution and contributed to its enrichment as well as to our
friends, the member of the Security Council, that voted to adopt it. I
cannot fail to express my country's gratitude to the Secretary General
for his report and document S/2013/357 which contains important
proposals and analyses as well as the efforts of the United Nations
Mission for Assistance in Iraq -- UNAMI -- led by Special Representative
of the Secretary-General Mr. [Martin] Kolber for its efforts in
fulfilling the requirements of its mandate in Iraq, as well as to the
state and government of Kuwait for it's support and assistance to Iraq
to emerge from the provisions of Chapter VII. [. . .] Mr. President,
your august council is meeting today to adopt a resolution which falls
within the context of a number of resolutions and measures taken by the
Security Council to remove Iraq from under the provisions of Chapter VII
of the United Nations' charter. In carefully looking at the past few
years, we can see how far Iraq has come along the path of constructive
cooperation with the objective of enabling it to finally fulfill all of
its obligations under Security Council resolutions. Our foreign policy
and international relations have mainly focused on the means of ridding
the people and the country of Iraq of the burden placed by those
resolutions. Such burdens would never have been imposed on Iraq had it
not been for the aggressive policies of the former regime, policies of
waging wars against its neighbors and internally repressing its own
people. Those resolutions have been an obstacle on Iraq's road toward
progress, prosperity and regional and international integration. In
looking back at our achievements over the past few years and Iraq
regaining its international standing, as it was prior to the adoption of
Resolution 661 of 1990, we take note of a crucial resolution:
Resolution 1762 of 2007 which ended the mandate of the United Nations
condition on Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission --
UNMOVIC. That resolution strengthened the sovereignty of Iraq and
lifted the weight of political constraints from the country. It was a
resolution that paved the way for Iraq's return to the regional and
international communities and contributed to the stability of our
region. That resolution represented the international community's
recognition of the correct approach taken by Iraq in fulfilling its
obligations in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation. It is
with great pride that Iraq currently chairs the Conference on
Disarmament in Geneva. This confirms the validity of the path that Iraq
has taken -- particularly following the ratification of the Additional
Protocol to the Safeguard Agreements for the International Atomic Energy
Agency -- IAEA -- and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Mr. President, your
esteemed council further decided in its Resolution 1859 of 2008 to
review those resolutions pertaining to the situation between Iraq and
Kuwait and the situation in Iraq in order to identify together the
mutual obligations corresponding to the international community as
represented by your esteemed council and those of Iraq. As result the
Security Council adopted three important resolutions on the 15th of
December 2010: Resolutions 1956, 1957 and 1958. According to which, all
of Iraq's obligations were ended with the exception of three issues
relating to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. Namely, one, the
issue of missing Kuwaitis and property; two, the maintenance of border
markers; and, thirdly, that of compensation. With regard to the first
issue, significant progress has been achieved within bilateral
cooperation between the two countries. None of that cooperation would
have been achieved without serious cooperation by the Iraqi
authorities. We shall continue to do so, we shall continue that
endeavor. And we will increase the pace of that cooperation in the
coming period. Now that the issue has been moved to the provisions of
Chapter VI of the charter by your latest resolution. In regards to the
second issue, the maintenance of border pillars, markers, Iraq and
Kuwait have reached a mechanism through the establishment of the
joint-ministerial committees and put in place the necessary measures as
indicated in security Resolution 833 of 1993. In this regards, may I
refer to the letter of the Secretary-General to the President of the
Security Council of 6-12-2013 referring to the end of the mission
entrusted to him under Resolution 833 of 1993, "Therefore, on that
basis, Iraq has now fulfilled all of its obligations under that
resolution." As for the issue of compensation, Iraq is committed to pay
the percentage decided by the Security Council based on the mechanism
as set by the United Nations Commission on Compensation and this has
been included in United Nations Security Council resolution 1956 of 2010
under the mechanism of the successor arrangement for the Iraq
development fund. We, therefore, believe, Mr. President, that Iraq -- by
the Security Council's adoption of this latest resolution -- Iraq has
fulfilled all of its obligations as provided by Security Council's
resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. We
believe that today's date, June 27 of 2013, will be a landmark, a
milestone, in the history of relationship between Iraq and the
international community.

That was a lengthy excerpt. But it's a major step, the lifting of
Chapter VII, and it also gives you an overview of the narrative the
Iraqi government wants out there. Iraq was placed under Chapter VII as a
result of its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Today there was a unanimous
vote.

All Iraq News reports
the news was greeted in Baghdad with celebrations: "launching fireworks
and raising the Iraqi flags in addition to organizing motorcades that
spread flowers and sweets [to] citizens in Baghdad," according to a
statement from Acting Mayor of Baghdad Abdul Hussein al-Murshidi. Press TV quotes
Nouri al-Maliki declaring, "Iraq is now free from the constraints
imposed by the follies of the dictatorial regime." I don't think that
statement helps a great deal. "Follies"? Seriously, that's what you're
going to call the attack on Kuwait?

And it's supposed to be a wonderful day for Iraq but, if you're honest,
it's just a slightly better day. Chapter VII did not go 'poof' and
disappear. It's been replaced with a new resolution which, as the United Nations notes, "called on the Iraqi Government to continue searching for Kuwaiti
nationals and property missing since Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion, but
terminated provisions in earlier texts that allowed the military
enforcement of the measures under Charter VII of the UN Charter.
" It's been moved from Chapter VII to Chapter VI.

After the session, Hoshyar Zebari addressed the press (and spoke in
English). "Today there was a very, very important Security Council
resolution on Iraq - Kuwait relations. And this resolution is a
historical resolution for Iraq and it's a success for the United Nations
and for the two countries. In fact, Chapter VII and the sanctions on
Iraq have become something of the past. And, as I said in my statement,
we are concentrating more on the present and the future in Iraq -
Kuwaiti relationship."

He hailed it as "an example for other countries to resolve their disputes between peaceful means."

He hailed many things. Not at the press conference, but in his remarks
to the Security Council, he hailed provincial elections -- 2009 and the
ones that have taken place so far this year. He spoke of how provincial
elections allowed the people to pick their government. He didn't speak
of the 2010 parliamentary elections. But he did mention the planned
2014 parliamentary elections. That was interesting.

I don't blame him for not sighting the problem plagued 2010 elections
which were only resolved with a legal contract, The Erbil Agreement,
which was then broken (by Nouri al-Maliki) and created the ongoing
political crisis in Iraq. One of so many crises in the country.

Iraqiya won the 2010 elections (so one of their members should have
been made prime minister if the country's Constitution had been followed
and US President Barack Obama hadn't insisted Nouri al-Maliki get a
second term). The leader of Iraqiya is Ayad Allawi. He Tweeted today:

Ayad Allawi, the man who is not Iraq’s prime minister despite winning
at the 2010 polls, blames the country’s violence and instability on an
incompetent government, badly trained forces and a constitution that he
says was forced on Iraqis by American invaders.“All the killings and bombings are happening and the security forces
aren’t able to cope, because they are unprofessional and there is no
proper military hierarchy,” Allawi said in a Facebook Q&A with fans.“The the security forces are built and run by certain political
groups and the government itself admits that these forces have been
infiltrated and are incapable of doing their job,” says Allawi,
insisting that an army should be trained for protection of all Iraqis,
not just those with certain religious or ethnic backgrounds.
Allawi, Iraq’s first prime minister after the invasion and once seen
as the “strongman” who would put the country back together, has been
sidelined ever since he was swindled out of his victory at the 2010
polls.
I read an incredibly stupid post at a website today. I'm being kind and
not naming it (it's not a blog, it's a website of a magazine that's
been around for decades). The post insisted that Americans all needed
to focus on ____ (foreign country) and that Americans "owed it" to _____
focus on it. Really, because US forces didn't get sent there. They
were sent to Iraq, or did the idiot forget that? (If I named the idiot
-- we have a lot of Arabic readers -- the idiot would be targeted as a
Zionist because of their organization which is another reason not to
name or link to the post.) There are numerous ways to respond to that
would-be Joan of Arc. I'll offer three quickly.

1) If you want to burn at the stake, step on up, honey, but don't try to pull me with you.

2) You don't go for seconds until you've cleaned your plate.

3) Have you looked at Iraq? If the US owes anything to another country
right now, I'd argue the biggest debt -- certainly debt of attention --
is to Iraq.

I'm so tired of these people selling their new wars while refusing to
even acknowledge the mess their War Hawk ways have created in Iraq.

The person has no idea what's going on in Iraq.

Others who have a slight idea argue The Erbil Agreement isn't important.

If you don't think that's important, you're suffering English press
damage. The Arabic press has never fogotten it. Rudaw, by the way,
isn't Arabic. It's a Kurdish press. And even they are talking about it.

Most Americans have no idea about the agreement or that it exists. Of those who do know, too many think it's unimportant.

More than anything else, The Erbil Agreement is why the US standing in Iraq is so low today.

Iraqis were even more thrilled by candidate Barack Obama than Germany or
other countries. They thought Iraq would have a friend. This man who
was opposed to the Iraq War (not quite true -- he gave a 2002 anti 'dumb
war' speech but by 2004 was telling the New York Times that, had he
been in the Senate in 2002, he might have voted for the resolution to go
to war with Iraq). And he charmed Nouri al-Maliki in their
face-to-face.

But then came the lead up to the 2010 elections. Gen Ray Odierno was
sounding warnings (he was the then-top US commander in Iraq). He could
see Nouri's State of Law potentially losing and, he worried, if that
happened what happens if Nouri refuses to step down.

The White House had the ear of then-US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill who
was a disaster and would be asked to step down from his post as a
result of the 2010 election aftermath. Chris Hill was fired, let's be
really clear on that because Hill keeps popping up as an Iraq 'expert'
in the media. He was fired. He was fired for the job he did.

Chris was whining about Odierno doing this or that. Chris felt that
Odierno got media attention and the media liked Ray better and if
someone would tell mean ol' Ray Odierno to stop talking to the media,
they might listen to him.

Instead of telling Chris to take the thumb out of his mouth and stop
whining, Barack went along with all of Chris' demands. And probably
because Odierno's reports weren't good.

They were truthful, they were reality-based. But they didn't make you
want to smile the way Chris Hill's eternal progress reports did. There
was no reality to the report Hill passed on.

And sure enough, Nouri was a thug. In March the elections were held and
second place Nouri refused to step down. Not for a day, not for a
week. For over eight months. Setting the record for that time.

Though he'd lost, Nouri wasn't going to step down. And as the stalemate
continued, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton went to Barack and told him it was time to stop
listening to Chris Hill and that he really needed to listen to Ray
Odierno.

This stalemate? That's why Iraqiya wants a caretaker government in
place when the 2014 elections (which could become 2013 ones if they're
moved up) are held. They don't believe Nouri will step down if he loses
again. Why would they? He's already demonstrated once that he
wouldn't.

For a little over eight months, things were at a stand still. But
Barack was still backing Nouri (Samantha Power swore Nouri was the best
shot at stability in Iraq -- proving that she's not only dumb, she's
deadly). So Barack has US officials pressure the other Iraqi leaders
into giving Nouri a second term. How? The Constitution is clear,
Nouri's out.

The Erbil Agreement went around the Constitution. It was a contract
between the leaders of the political blocs. The US officials were
saying, 'Look, there's no prime minister. Nothing's going forward, your
Parliament has only had a roll call in 8 months, there are no meetings,
there is no Cabinet. Nouri has refused to budge for 8 months. It's up
to you to be the mature ones and show leadership and allow Iraq to move
forward by letting Nouri have a second term. But, in exchange for
giving him this second term, you can ask for things your constituents
want. And we'll write it up and it'll be a legally binding contract
with the full backing of the US government." So the political leaders
signed on.

And Nouri ran with the agreement long enough to be named prime minister
and then shredded it and refused to honor any of the promises he had
made in it.

This is why Iraqis lost faith with Barack. The US government played
dumb and didn't say a word. And ever since then the political crisis
has been about The Erbil Agreement and Nouri's refusal to implement this
power-sharing agreement.

He went on to blame Iran and she went on to get very frustrated. (Iran is a part of the story.)

Sarah Montague: You chose to go into that government [Nouri's government].

Ayad Allawi: No, we chose because the alternative, after seven
months of not forming a government, we thought Iraq needs a government.
And the alternative was a power-sharing agreement between us and Mr.
Maliki and the Dawa Party. So we signed the power-sharing agreement
[The Erbil Agreement] --

Sarah Montague: Was that a mistake?

Ayad Allawi: It was not honored, unfortunately -- neither by the
Islamists, Mr. Maliki and his nor by the international community who
supported the power-sharing agreement. But this was not honored,
unfortunately. We stayed in the Cabinet for a period of time until we
saw that there were no intentions at all to implement the agreement and
by then the demonstrations started in Iraq in 2011 ---Sarah Montague: But do you accept -- do you accept that part of the
problem is that you couldn't control your own party? That, if actually,
Iraqiya formed a bloc that was together and which you could control
then you could have had more influence than you chose to?Ayad Allawi: No, because there were some interferences from outside powers to prevent this from happening.Sarah Montague: You say you picked up a lot of votes -- Sunni votes -- do you recognize that they may feel let down by you now?Ayad Allawi: I don't think so. We -- We tried and this was really
an opportunity that the Sunnis elected a Shi'ite and this shows that
they are not sectarian.Sarah Montague: They elected you. And you're a secular Shia, you
brought Sunnis along and you tried to reach across these sectarian
divides?Ayad Allawi: -- know what happened and what happened was very, very
clear, that there was Iranian influence on certain parties in Iraq, they
were objecting to the Iraqiya taking over. They were to the extent of
threatening. And that's why I'm saying that lots of leaders tried to
intervene [. . .] by explaining to Iran that this is not the way to
interfere in Iraq. But the Iranians never budged really. And
unfortunately, what went with this was the international scene,
international community, agreed to Iran and we then had to agree because
we can't leave the country without a prime minister -- Sarah Montague: You say the international community, the Americans? Are you saying the Americans should have stood up to Iran?Ayad Allawi: Yes, democracy. The Americans.Sarah Montague: Do you feel let down by the Americans?Ayad Allawi: They let down the political process, they let down the democratic process in doing so, the Americans.Sarah Montague: Realistically, what could they have done?Ayad Allawi: They could have used their office to not keep on
pressuring us and others and the Kurds to accept Nouri al-Maliki as a
prime minister.Sarah Montague: They should have said 'no' even though the majority of the Shi'ites --Ayad Allawi: They should have said that we respect the
Constitution. Iraq was still under Chapter VII. The [UN] Security
Council supported the elections and supported the results of the
elections. And then they changed their minds once Iran started to
behave in a very aggressive way against Iraqiya.Sarah Montague: . . . [stumbles for words] It sounds as if you're
saying, "Look I didn't get my way! The Americans should have put me in!
And --"Ayad Allawi: No, no, no, no. The Iraqi people voted me in, not the
Americans. And the Americans, unfortunately, I don't know why, they
agreed to what Iran was saying, they blocked the way of Iraqiya to take
over. So this is really very simple. This is what happened.

Washington has little political and no military influence
over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard
Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame,
Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in
2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be
honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable
judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the
most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government,
it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might
have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

Just because most US outlets refused and refuse to cover what happened
doesn't change the fact that Iraqis, that the Arabic region, knows
exactly what happened and it's not a good view of the United States that
they've been left with.

Now maybe in some sort of cold and 'realpolitk' manner, people could
live with it if it had resulted in improvements for the Iraqi people.
But it hasn't.

As bad as that violence is, and it is bad, it was only morning-to-mid-day violence. More was to come. BBC News reports
Baghdad cafes were struck by bombings, "The bombs went off on Thursday
evening when the coffee shops were filled with people watching a
football match." Reuters counts "at least 22" dead. Today, the United Nations noted:The recent wave of violence in Iraq is taking a toll on human rights
in the country, according to a United Nations report out today which
recommends that the Iraqi Government implement measures in a range of
areas, including police training and women's and children's rights.
According to the report, which covers the period from 1 July to 31
December 2012, at least 3,200 civilians were killed and more than 10,000
injured in 2012 in a reversal of the trend that had seen violence
decline in recent years. The report warns that the upturn in armed
violence requires greater civilian protection and strengthening of human
rights institutions in the country.
“The return to high casualty figures means that much more needs to be
done to protect civilians,” said the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General for Iraq, Martin Kobler.
“We have consistently urged Iraqi leaders to engage in dialogue and
develop policies that address the root causes of the problem. Too many
innocent lives have been lost,” he said.
The report, produced by the Human Rights Office of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in cooperation with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), stresses that more needs to be done to ensure financial, medical and other forms of support reach victims of violence.
It also notes that the Iraqi Government has yet to respond to UN and international calls for a moratorium on the death penalty.
“Weaknesses in the criminal justice system mean that the death sentence
is often handed down under questionable circumstances in Iraq,” said the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay. “With 123 prisoners executed in 2012, there is a great risk that the
worst miscarriages of justice imaginable are taking place here.”

On the violence, Al-Shorfa reports, "Scores of people wounded in attacks that hit Iraq the past two weeks
have been transferred to European hospitals for treatment, the Iraqi
government said Thursday (June 27th)." Once upon a time (following the October 31, 2010 attack on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad),
Nouri was publicly attacking France and other governments for providing
medical treatment and more. No word from Nouri today as the actions
admit what most people already knew: Iraq's limited hospital beds are
already full.

QUESTION: Yeah. There has been a really horrific spike in the
violence in Iraq with so many killed, but also some Iraqi politicians
saying that they should open the discussion again for a new security
agreement with the United States. Will the United States be sort of
receptive to such an idea?

MR. VENTRELL: I hadn’t seen that particular point, or I’m not
sure if – I’d have to refer you to the Embassy if they have more
information on that. But we’ve been very clear about our concern about
continued violence and the need for an end to sectarian attacks, and
we’ll continue to make that point.

QUESTION: So other than condemning the violence, are you doing anything to sort of help mitigate --

MR. VENTRELL: Our Embassy is – our Embassy and our experts
here in Washington are very engaged, continue to work with all the
parties on – to try to be – help there to be as much cooperation as
possible between different political groups so that Iraqis can work out
their differences through the political system, and that’s really the
key here.

AFP quotes
the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler stating
today, "I am very concerned at the end of my two years, because
sectarianism
increases, violence increases." Kobler may or may not really be
concerned. But is the United Nations really concerned? It's a question
worth asking because AFP explains, "Kobler told AFP from his residence
in
Baghdad's heavily-fortified Green Zone ahead of his departure from Iraq
to take up a new post as UN special envoy to the Democratic Republic of
Congo." Kobler's leaving and no one's been named as a replacement.
This is the worst time for Iraq in the last few years and there's not
Special Envoy named as the current Special Envoy exits the country to
take another post.

We know who's exiting. Who might be increasing their presence? Reuters quotes
Gen Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating
yesterday, "We've made a recommendation that as we look at the
challenges faced by
the Lebanese armed forces, the Iraqi security forces with a re-emerging
Al Qaida in Iraq, and the Jordanians, that we would work with them to
help them build additional capability." AP's Qassim Abdul-Zahra reports
on this today and notes that the drawdown at the end of 2011 left
"About 100 military and civilian Department of
Defense personnel remain in Iraq as an arm of the American Embassy to
act as liaisons with the Iraqi government and facilitate arms sales." A
vast improvement over yesterday's AP report (not by Adbul-Zahra).

We have a
mil-to-mil relationship with the Lebanese armed forces now. I've had
since I -- since I commanded CENTCOM, actually, about four or five years
ago. And we've made a recommendation that as we look at the challenges
faced by the Lebanese armed forces, the Iraqi security forces with a
re-emerging al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Jordanians, that we would work
with them to help them build additional capability. But this -- when you say would we send the United States
Army or the United States military into Lebanon, I'm talking about teams
of trainers, and I'm talking about accelerating foreign military sales
for equipment for them. This is -- this is about building their
capability, not ours.

"Militarily, what we're doing is assisting our partners in the
region, the neighbors of Syria, to ensure that they're prepared to
account for the potential spillover effects," Dempsey said during a
briefing, citing the recent announcement that the U.S. left some Patriot
missile batteries and F- 16s in Jordan to aid that country's defense.Dempsey said the U.S. military is already working with the Iraqi military, the Lebanese armed forces, and Turkey.

The agreement is the Memo of Understanding. It's a shame the press refused to cover it in real time.

Late to the party? Food's all gone but you can make yourself a drink.Fromthe April 30th snapshot:

Tim Arango had major news (granted, it was buried in a report) and
everyone pretty much ignored it. (Tom Hayden didn't -- but even the
editorial board and the 'fact checkers' at Tim Arango's own paper
ignored his report.) Tim Arango's report
came out right before the debates. But, as Ava and I noted in our
debate coverage, none of the moderators ever asked about it or even
seemed aware of it.

The moderators were uninformed. Worse, so were the 'fact checkers' of
the debates. October 23, 2012, the morning after the last Barack -
Romney debate, "The only thing worse than the debate itself (Ava and C.I.)" went up. In it, Ava and I take on the so-called 'fact checkers' with regards to Iraq:

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to
General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently
deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with
intelligence.

That directly relates, USA Today, to the fact check you're supposed to be conducting. You're ignorant and you're not alone. CNN concludes
their Iraq fact check with "Each man's attacks are
rooted in fact. The Obama administration did attempt, unsuccessfully, to
extend the presence of a scaled-back U.S. training mission in Iraq,
while Romney has said Washington should have kept a considerably larger
force in Baghdad." D-d-did they, CNN? Did the Obama administration
attempt, unsuccessfully, to extend the presence of a scaled-back U.S.
training mission in Iraq? And, more importantly, are they still trying?

Yes, they are. But don't expect CNN to tell you about that. And don't
expect Andrea Mitchell and NBC's Truth Squad to tell you the truth
either. Like CNN, they find
both were accurate, "The president was referring to an Oct. 8, 2012,
speech that Romney
gave criticizing the 'abrupt' withdrawal of all American troops from
Iraq, but the Republican didn’t explicitly say the U.S. should have more
troops there. Romney is right that the administration tried and
failed to get an agreement that would have allowed a small force of U.S.
troops to remain for several years." But is it accurate to ignore that
the White House continues to pursue negotiations on sending US troops
back into Iraq? No, it isn't.

Or anyone else. Shashank Bengali (Los Angeles Times) does a better job
than many, noting the attempt by Barack to extend US troops beyond
2011: "But the negotiations fell apart over Iraq’s unwillingness to
grant U.S.
soldiers immunity from prosecution. The last U.S. troops withdrew from
Iraq in December." That last sentence is where Bengali is lost. US
troops remain in Iraq -- to guard the diplomatic staff, as 'trainers,'
Special-Ops and -- as the Iraqi press has been reporting for weeks now
-- searching planes coming through Baghdad International on their way to
Syria and on the Syrian border.

Susan Cornwell and Lucy Shackelford (Reuters) also fail the fact check: "The last U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq last December, ending a war
launched in March 2003. At the height of the war, there were more than
170,000 U.S. troops there. Last year Obama did try
to negotiate an agreement with Iraq that would have kept some U.S.
forces in the country as trainers, but the two governments failed to
reach an agreement over giving American soldiers legal immunity."

Not only do the two forget that negotiations are ongoing, not only do
they forget that US troops are still there but we believe Susan
Cornewell was present a few months back at the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee hearing when the over 15,000 US troops that were moved to
Kuwait from Iraq so that they would be right on the border, ready to go
back in, were discussed. We believe Susan sat to our right. Maybe
we're remembering wrong.

John Glaser (Antiwar.com) falls
into the camp of noting that Barack tried -- past tense -- to get an
agreement. John misses the fact that the negotiations continue.

According to Michael Gordon:
"Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with
a government led by Mr. Maliki. 'Maliki wants us to stick around
because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,' Mr. Biden said.
'I'll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA' he added,
referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate."

They wanted it and they still do. Hey, where's Brett McGurk?

Any member of the press want to answer that one?

We do realize Brett did the work around in 2008 when it came to the
immunity issue, right? We all know that? On the left, we guess we
don't since so many of the left pimped for Brett even after the sex and
journalism scandal (don't sleep with sources and don't let your lover
vet your copy).

So where's Brett right now?

Another question: Where's the New York Times' fact check? Right here.
And everyone above can feel superior to the so-called paper of record.
We knew the circulation had dipped again but who knew that this was
true even among the paper's reporters? Apparently, Michael Luo, Michael
Cooper, Michael D. Shear, Richard A. Oppel Jr, Jeff Zeleny and the
others doing the fact check, not one of them actually reads their own
paper.

Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th:
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to
General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently
deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with
intelligence.

That was actual reporting. And yet his own peers at the paper are unaware of it.

If the debate -- the "dull-bate" a stand up on the phone just called it
-- last night was bad, the only thing worse has been the 'fact
checking.'

Even the New York Times 'fact checkers' ignored what Tim Arango had
reported. The press failed. Did they fail because they were stupid or
did they fail because this was another attempt to help the US government
send troops to Iraq? I guess your call on that depends on whether you
see the press as imbeciles or liars.

But their inability to report the truth is exactly why one of the most
important institutions in this country is held in such low regard by the
American people.

(And for those who didn't know? Because the press wasn't telling -- the
American press. Brett McGurk was already in Iraq as the Iraqi press
was reporting. As far as Americans knew, in June of 2012, he withdrew
his name from nomination for US Ambassador to Iraq. And that was it for
Brett. But the reality is that he's billed as the Assistant Secretary
of State. Not at the State Dept's website. They don't mention that
he's in Iraq there, they don't mention that he works for the State
Department. But he's in Iraq and that's how he's presented to the Iraqi
officials he meets with, "Assistant Secretary of State." You have to
wonder how much lying this administration thinks it can get away with?
I've never known an administration before to lie about any non-CIA
employee being in a country, especially when they've been there for
months and will be there for months and are meeting with that country's
leaders.)

As today is National Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Awareness Day, I
would like to take a brief moment to address those veterans experiencing
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder who may be in attendance or listening.
Hope and healing is possible. And I encourage you and all of those
suffering to reach out for help. You can call 1-800-273-TALK, that's
1-800-273-8255, and press "1" for veterans.

He was speaking at the start of the House Veterans Affairs Committee
hearing. I wasn't present. When I mentioned to a friend that I
wouldn't be there (due to Zebari and the UN), he said he was going and
he'd pass on anything he thought was the most important aspect of
today's hearing. To him, that was the most important aspect (he's a
veteran) and I thank him for sharing that.

On hearings, J. Russell George is an Inspector General with the Treasury
Dept and he has been noted in numerous snapshots because he testified
at hearings I've attended. He is not above criticism. No one is.
(That includes me.) And I have criticized him and strongly called him
out on some things. But there's a push to blame him. It's the latest
attempt of crap from the Democratic Party. It appalls me to see how
desperate and disgusting my party has become.

The spin is that George misled. That's one part of the spin, one
attempt. First off, we were at those hearings and he didn't mislead.
Political groups were targeted. After the hearings started, we usually
said, community wide in our reporting, that political groups were
targeted. We didn't say "just conservatives." What was exposed was
that groups who were right or left but seen as not worshiping Barack had
problems with the IRS in terms of tax status. Ava especially
emphasized this in her reports.

Some Democratic politicians (and their ugly mouthpieces on MSNBC) want
to pretend like the month of May didn't happen and Congressional
hearings didn't reveal this fact. That's a lie.

The second part of the spin is that George failed to do his job.

Maybe. If you're looking at an investigation he did and you can back up that claim, go for it.

But that's not what they're saying. What they're saying is he failed to unearth targeting of left organizations.

This is so disgusting. I was appalled at the lies under Bully Boy Bush
when Valerie Plame was outed. Republicans refused to deal with reality
and lied -- LIED -- to make it appear that what took place was less
outrageous.

Now some Democrats are doing the same. George is an IG. His division
gets a complaint and he investigates it. He is not spying on the IRS.
He is not there 24 hours, seven days a week, trying to monitor all of
their actions. When he examines something -- true of any IG of any
department -- they are examining the specifics of a complaint.

What some Dems in Congress are currently doing in attacking George is
disgusting. To be real honest, he seems like a nice and unassuming
person. I feel bad when I have to call him out. But I'm calling out
for things he did. I'm not inventing a role for him to play.

Oversight of the IRS is supposed to take place within the IRS. The IG
is not there for oversight. No problems should escalate to the IG,
honestly. By the time that's happened, the IRS officials in charge
should already have been aware of a problem and addressing it. That's
their job.

If some Dems want to whine that they don't feel that left groups getting
targeted was given enough attention, that's on the IRS. George did not
get a complaint on that.

J. Russell George is getting smeared for partisan reasons. That needs
to stop and Americans need to start demanding that members of Congress
act a little more mature.